Cast a cold eye on the slots deal

The proposed site for Worcester’s potential slot casino is physically located in Precinct 2, but emotionally it is largely associated with Precinct 4, which is represented by rookie City Councilor Sarai Rivera.

I say rookie in the best sense of the word, as Ms. Rivera is a first-time city councilor, in her maiden term. Right now she and her colleagues, with the exception of Councilor Konnie Lukes, are playing their cards close to their vest on the slot casino issue.

They are not taking a position one way or the other, committing themselves only to ensuring that the public receives as much information as possible and waiting to see what kind of a deal can be brokered with the billionaires backing the proposed slot casino and hotel investment package.

Ms. Rivera, however, must be mindful of the wily nature of some of her much more politically experienced colleagues on the council, because when all the agonizing and moralizing over having a casino in Worcester is over and done, it is her district that stands to be one of the biggest losers, whichever way the issue is decided.

Ms. Lukes has so far been the only one among her colleagues to unequivocally state her opposition to bringing a casino to Worcester. She doesn’t support gambling, but her opposition is not on moral grounds, which she acknowledged would be hypocritical given how the state and municipalities are already deeply involved with gambling, aka the state Lottery.

Ms. Lukes is concerned that a slot casino would have a chilling impact on the city’s business climate and quality of life

“We need to go back to our industrial past and greatness, and right now we are being detoured from our mission,” she said.

Whether or not you agree with Ms. Lukes, she is showing the courage of her convictions, and it would be great if only one her colleagues would muster similar courage to present a counter argument, without first having to test the wind, dot their I’s and cross their T’s.

I don’t, of course, agree with Ms. Lukes. Going back to our industrial past and greatness is a sentimental rather than a practical journey, and if one slot casino can undo all the efforts and the millions that have been spent on economic development over the years, then this City Council and its predecessors ought to go down as the biggest frauds of the century.

But let’s say Ms. Lukes and her supporters win the day, how do you think Ms. Rivera’s district will make out as we await a return to the city’s past greatness, and while, in the interim, we continue to deal with rising water and sewer bills, and health insurance cost, the continued usurpation of taxable properties by nonprofit entities, and the dwindling of state and federal funding?

Well, remember what City Councilor Bill Eddy once said when the council voted to dump the PIP shelter in her district for a second time?

“The success of Worcester is its strength in maintaining a middle-class base in the city,” Mr. Eddy said at the time.

“It’s easy to say we dumped the shelter on Main South. But there’s a historical use there. ... I’m not going to apologize for fighting to maintain a middle-class neighborhood.”

Ms. Rivera would do well to keep that in mind as she follows the current process. Despite the potential impact the slots casino could have on her district, she is not among the members of a joint committee selected by the mayor to hold hearings on the issue.

The exclusion, she said, does not dilute influence. Perhaps not, but she should follow the money closely on this one, because if the backers of the casino should win it is highly likely that her district could be marginalized again when it is time to count the windfalls.